Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana
High Court
06 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana
Date of order
06 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana v. Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
ITA No. 521 of 2006
Date of decision: 6.12.2010
Commissioner of Income Tax , Ludhiana I, Ludhiana
-----Appellant
Vs.
Deepak Fastners Limited, Ludhiana
----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:-Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
This appeal was admitted to consider following substantialquestion of law raised on behalf of the revenue arising out of orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench ‘A’,Chandigarh in ITA No.636/Chandi/2005 dated 28.4.2006, for theassessment year 2002-03:-
“Whether on the facts and law, the Hon’ble Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holding that theDEPB was an income derived from the Industrialundertaking, ignoring the fact that in whatever form theexport incentive/benefit flowed to the respondentresulting in some extra profit, the source of DEPB wasthe particular scheme of the Government and not thebusiness of industrial undertaking?”
We have heard leaner counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the issue
is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Liberty India v. CIT, (2009) 317 ITR 218.
Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the
revenue and against the assessee.
The appeal is allowed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge
December 6, 2010‘gs’
(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.